DarwidHalim wrote:So, how can there are aggregate of feeling, perception, etc., when there is no owner?

Since there is no owner that ever make them.

Because when one erroneously perceives an owner for them, that "owner" itself is a perception etc. and lands back in the domain of the aggregates.

Metta,Retro.

If we don't have the verb, it is illogical to have the result of the verb.

Buddha clearly said in his higher teaching that there is no self (subject), actually not only on human, but across the board including every phenomena.

If there is subject, it is then very illogical there are characteristic of the subject, such as feeling, perception, etc.

Like you said it is because erroneously putting subject then there is such thing as feeling, perception, etc.

Like discussing the shape of rabbit horn, what is the shape of rabbit horn, what is the color, how many type of rabbit horn.

But, really there is no point at all to discuss all of those rabbit horn, because in the first place that horn is not there. There is no horn to be analyzed. The rabbit horn is erroneously imagined.

In the similar way, these 5 aggregates are exactly purely imagination, which is raised based on erroneously perceiving there is subject.

Since self (subject) is purely imaginary and is never there, we can the conclude with absolute certainty all 5 aggregates are just papanca imaginary, like discussing rabbit horns.

Rabbit horn is just an idea, just a fantasy.

All 5 aggregates (feeling, perceptions, mental formations, etc) are also just a fantasy, an idea of mad man, of confused beings.

I am not here nor there. I am not right nor wrong. I do not exist neither non-exist. I am not I nor non-I. I am not in samsara nor nirvana. To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!

retrofuturist wrote:Mike's objection that khandas are "classifications" as opposed to "things" is moot in this context, because there is "doing" required in order for them to become "classifications". They do not become classifications independent of the activity of classifying - or, to extend the formula of the original post to Mike's choice of expression...

So you think that that classifying is the problem, not part of the solution? What is the solution in your version?

mikenz66 wrote:So you think that that classifying is the problem, not part of the solution?

Believing in aggregates is a more refined classification than believing in atman, so whether it's "problem" or (a preliminary) "solution" (to be abandoned over time) probably depends subjectively on where one starts.

Irrespective, taking one's classifications as being real or inherent, independent of the act of classifying... yes, that is "problem".

mikenz66 wrote:What is the solution in your version?

The "solution" is sunnata (emptiness) and asankhata (non-fabricating).

Or, if you'd rather it explained in terms of how it is done, Daverupa put it eloquently here... "Samadhi is best translated as composure, not concentration, imo; it's a certain tenor of six-sense body awareness-&-mindfulness." - viewtopic.php?f=16&t=13424&p=199972 . With Samma Samadhi, one can discern emptiness instead of fabricating things with respect to the six-sense body. It's learning what fabricating is, and how it is done, so that one can train the mind to stop fabricating. If we create fabrications and cling to them, there will surely not be release. (See also Kirk's sutta quote from page 1)

retrofuturist wrote:Believing in aggregates is a more refined classification than believing in atman, so whether it's "problem" or (a preliminary) "solution" (to be abandoned over time) probably depends subjectively on where one starts.

Irrespective, taking one's classifications as being real or inherent, independent of the act of classifying... yes, that is "problem".

OK, well from my point of view there is nothing to "believe" in, since aggregates are not "things".

As you go on to say, it's discerning emptiness that seems to the be important point, and these classification are just aids to that development.

mikenz66 wrote:So you think that that classifying is the problem, not part of the solution?

Believing in aggregates is a more refined classification than believing in atman, so whether it's "problem" or (a preliminary) "solution" (to be abandoned over time) probably depends subjectively on where one starts.

Irrespective, taking one's classifications as being real or inherent, independent of the act of classifying... yes, that is "problem".

Oh no it's not!

I wonder why this Mahayana distrust of words, conceptualisation and language always creeps into how we should interpret the Pali Dhamma.

I've cited DN 15 before in this regard. Yes, the Buddha admits of the potential pitfalls in language, given the worldling's predilection to construct (maññati) notions of self based on language. Yet, He affirms the opposite side of the coin, ie that "the pathways of designation, language and description" (adhivacanapatha, niruttipatha, viññattipatha) possible with nāmarūpa together with viññāṇa also lies with paññāvacara (the sphere of wisdom).

In SN 22.63, we find the Buddha's most resounding endorsement of adhivacanapatha, niruttipatha, viññattipatha as proper tools for seeing, inferring on, understanding and describing the Aggregates. This sutta makes short work of the non-dual notions that permeate scholastic Mahayana.

It seems that conceptualisation or classification is, in the Pali Canon, something that takes us all the way to full understanding.

Last edited by Sylvester on Fri Aug 10, 2012 3:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

Retro:Believing in aggregates is a more refined classification than believing in atman

This is indeed very true.

Actually, everyday we are killing ourselves. We are actually putting ourselves deeper and deeper into the mud.

And the way we kill ourselves is very interesting.

We reject the existence of self and atman directly from the point of view of the subject.

But, ironically,

We use the verb to unconsciously reify the existence of self again and again.

We reject the existence of subject, but we unknowingly assert the verb again and again.

Classification of aggregate or classifying the aggregate is actually the act that reify the existence at self. It is the subtle form of saying there is self.

Kirk, actually ask a very interesting question.

He asked how can there is breathing, because Buddha said clearly in the meditation to use breathing. Because of that breathing must exist. Because Buddha clearly said breathing.

In order to solve this issue, we actually must know how to classify the sutras, which one is path, which one is the view.

The Sutta that tell us the view is the teaching of emptiness.

The Sutta that tell us the path is like anapanasatti Sutta, etc.

Because we have believed there is a rabbit horn, Buddha must use our language like to treat this rabbit horn in this way, you meditate this rabbit horn in that way.

If we follow that Buddha prescription, we will then come to the final view, that although Buddha tell me to treat this rabbit horn like this or like that, although Buddha help me by classifying the rabbit horn into this or that, actually the Buddha is using rabbit horn to finally teach me - at the end that rabbit horn is not there.

If Buddha tell me straight away there is no feeling in you, no one will believe him. No one. Because we have this extreme deep of believe there is rabbit horn.

If we are not aware of this:Classifying something will put you into the danger of asserting self or atman in the indirect and subtle way. All verbs that we use daily has a very dangerous pitfall in making us to assert the self and atman in the subtlest way.

One of Buddhist monk said this idea very well:You stand in front of the busy street.

If you keep saying movement, movement, movement, and movement, even you say there is no self, at the end of the day, that repetition movement will make you assert there is self.

It because by saying movement, deep inside you, you assert something move, which only self can move.

You will end up in deep shit - there is self.

Majority of us has a difficulty in reading Suttas. We have this issue.

This Sutta say there is this. That Sutta say there is not that. Whih one is true?

In order to solve that, we must know which one is the practice sutta( which in this case, Buddha must useThere is rabbit horn, because we believe so), and which one is the final view of Buddha (which in this case, the rabbit horn is rejected).

Knowing the dangerous of using verb in reifying the subject or self is extremely important to be realized. Because it is just aVery subtle form to acknowledge there is atman or self at the end.

I am not here nor there. I am not right nor wrong. I do not exist neither non-exist. I am not I nor non-I. I am not in samsara nor nirvana. To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!

Sylvester wrote:Following of course the admonition of the Buddha, and not Madhyamika.

Sylvester ~ ...it's all there in the suttas (e.g. SN 12.15), so long as you don't retrofit Mahavihara scholastic/philosophical realism back into it.

Tilt ~ As per Sylvester's posts above (and now Robert's post below), he openly stands alongside "believing in aggregates"... therefore your questions seeking elaboration upon what this position entails would therefore more productively be put to him than to me.

If Retro is incapable of accepting SN 22.63 at face value, but must resort to making a strawman of my position, it looks like I can have unagi for lunch today.

Even the most "Mahayana"-like sutta, ie MN 1, does not go to the extreme of sunyata that Retro attempts to foist on the Pali Dhamma. In that sutta, the problem is with conceiving a self, but not in perceiving an Aggregate.

If he believes that paṭighasamphassa were the problem, instead of the sequel to adhivacanasamphassa, ie attapaññatti, he should volunteer to re-write DN 15 to suit his world view.

And for heaven's sake, pls don't be so coy and titillate with "it's all there in the suttas". Cite your authority.

retrofuturist wrote:Believing in aggregates is a more refined classification than believing in atman, so whether it's "problem" or (a preliminary) "solution" (to be abandoned over time) probably depends subjectively on where one starts.

Irrespective, taking one's classifications as being real or inherent, independent of the act of classifying... yes, that is "problem".

OK, well from my point of view there is nothing to "believe" in, since aggregates are not "things".

As you go on to say, it's discerning emptiness that seems to the be important point, and these classification are just aids to that development.

Mike

Actually the khandhas are very real, they are paratthama dhammas. It is self that is not real, that is mere imagination.

retrofuturist wrote:Tilt ~ As per Sylvester's posts above (and now Robert's posts below), he openly stands alongside "believing in aggregates"... therefore your questions seeking elaboration upon what this position entails would therefore more productively be put to him than to me.

I am asking you what you mean since you are the one that brought it up. And I am am asking this a third. I am simply asking that you clarify what you mean by "believing in aggregates," so that I am directly addressing your words on this, not some one elses (which seems to be a bit problemsatic with all these strawman accusations flying about).

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12

retrofuturist wrote:Tilt ~ As per Sylvester's posts above (and now Robert's posts below), he openly stands alongside "believing in aggregates"... therefore your questions seeking elaboration upon what this position entails would therefore more productively be put to him than to me.

I am asking you what you mean since you are the one that brought it up. And I am am asking this a third. I am simply asking that you clarify what you mean by "believing in aggregates," so that I am directly addressing your words on this, not some one elses (which seems to be a bit problemsatic with all these strawman accusations flying about).

tiltbillings wrote:I am asking you what you mean since you are the one that brought it up.

That being your ingrained mode of engagement...

Yet ironically you (correctly) observe the weaknesses of strawmen in dialogue, yet instead of actually questioning those who openly hold the position and can substantiate it without the risk of introducing strawman argumentation, you insist on me explaining their positions.

It's like asking me about Vajrayana when you've got the Dalai Lama sitting next to you... just get over this insistence that I answer your question and ask Robert or Sylvester what it is like to "believe in aggregates" if you genuinely wish to know.

If you wish to ask me what it is like to not "believe in aggregates", then by all means do.

(And if you ask me a fourth time, you own any strawmen that may inadvertantly come from my explanation...)

You brought this upon yourself by attributing to me and putting upon my lips what you disagree with. I cited DN 15 and SN 22.61, not Sarvastivadin Tri-Temporal Materialism.

And if you had half the decency to check what the Mahavihara Commentators actually had to say about sabhāva in response to Sarvastivadin Materialism, you would not have put your foot in your mouth by foisting some pop sound-bite emanating from the Mahayana camp about the Mahavihara or even identifying my position with it.

One would have thought that after the gazillion times Tilt has posted the Commentary to the Dhammasaṅgaṇī's treatment of sabhāva that readers would have abandoned pop sound-bites for a more nuanced understanding of the Theravada position.

retrofuturist wrote:Sylvester ~ ...it's all there in the suttas (e.g. SN 12.15), so long as you don't retrofit Mahavihara scholastic/philosophical realism back into it.

You seem to be the one insisting on realism and scholastic wordplay. As far as I'm concerned the Buddha taught (and the Mahavihara worked out in some detail) are ways of classifying experience, and hence aiding liberation.

It would be interesting to see some sutta evidence that classification, or even reification for those who might like to choose to do reification, is actually an obstacle to liberation. All you seem to be offering at present is a preference for a particular philosophical approach.

tiltbillings wrote:I am asking you what you mean since you are the one that brought it up.

That being your ingrained mode of engagement...

Yet ironically you (correctly) observe the weaknesses of strawmen in dialogue, yet instead of actually questioning those who openly hold the position and can substantiate it without the risk of introducing strawman argumentation, you insist on me explaining their positions.

It's like asking me about Vajrayana when you've got the Dalai Lama sitting next to you... just get over this insistence that I answer your question and ask Robert or Sylvester what it is like to "believe in aggregates" if you genuinely wish to know.

If you wish to ask me what it is like to not "believe in aggregates", then by all means do.

(And if you ask me a fourth time, you own any strawmen that may inadvertantly come from my explanation...)

Metta,Retro.

I am asking a fourth time.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723

>> Do you see a man wise[enlightened/ariya]in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<<-- Proverbs 26:12